Suburbia

Is anyone else getting sick of seeing mini-malls and monotonous housing developments spring up everywhere? This expansion boom makes for an ugly redefinement of our landscape. Population growth is an exponential function, meaning this development will theoretically only get faster. Earth obviously has limited amount of space for human inhabitants, so why not work now to start a trend of growing out cities up, rather than out?

Many of America's cities' skylines have been stagnant views lately, with the practicality of the suburbs becoming increasingly more attractive to both businesses and residents. If the government could create incentives to use our space more wisely, humans could prevent many of our expansion problems and preserve the natural landscape for as long as possible. I believe this would drastically improve our quality of life. Commutes to the city for both work and recreation would be easier and more environmentally friendly due to the increased use of public transportation. More land within our cities could be used for massive parks, taking precedence from New York's central park. Inhabitants would be closer to their friends, families, place of work, and place of recreation. More land would be available outside of city limits for publice use, as well as habitat conservation. Cities can still be made beautiful without our quarter-acre plots of grass and plants. What about creating more roof gardens?

Public officials in Columbus have been actively trying to identify and implement ways to revive the downtown area. Our city's once affluent areas have turned into slums as the money continues to move outward, leaving poverty in its wake. This issue is of extreme importance and needs to be addressed as such. Perhaps looking to the sky is the answer rather than grabbing for the next plot of land?

Money Sent Ohio's Way for Trains

There's been vast media coverage lately over the $400 million sent Ohio's way to help revive "high speed" railway lines between the downtowns of Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland. I put high speed in quotation marks because although the trains will max out at 80 mph, they will only average 40 mph or so between cities once all of the stops are factored in.

Many people are excited about future connectivity between the cities, but I am not. Taxes must be raised in order to cover the remaining cost of the building the tracks and an estimated 15 million will be needed a year for maintainance. In an economy that is already strapping ohio for cash, why worsen the problem? Advocates say that everyone who rides will save money on commuting and simple trips. However, the cost to ride is $20 to ride to Cincinnati or Cleveland at 40 mph. I would much rather put that money into the gas tank and drive there at 75 mph. Once you arrive at your destination, then what? Either you walk around the city, spend more money to hire a taxi, or hope that the city implements train offshoots to help get you around.

I imagine many people picture the expensive high speed trains similar to the ones in use in Europe. But the truth is that Ohio will most likely build using Amtrak, train notoriosly dirty, unreliable, and slow. As a result, the federal money spread throughout the nation would better be used by giving it all to one or two cities to implement quality high speed trains. If the initiative proves successful, then we can begin talking about spreading money nationwide. Thoughts?